This report and the accompanying data file sketch a picture of subsidized households across the United States. Each line in the detailed data is identified by key numbers and letters which are explained in "Meaning of Codes." In the body of this report, information is spread across two facing pages. Column headings are printed vertically, and are explained more fully in the "Meaning of Codes" section.

Earlier data are available for 1977 and 1993-97 (see bibliography). Differences show better coverage, more than true change.

Program Overview

The U.S. government has subsidized housing for renters with low incomes since the Housing Act of 1937. All programs covered in this report offer subsidies to reduce rents. Households generally pay rent equal to 30% of their incomes, after deductions,(1) and the Federal government pays the rest. To enter the programs, people must have incomes below an income limit, which varies by household size and location. They apply, and wait until their name rises to the top of the waiting list for the limited number of subsidized units available. Most of the programs are paid for by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The bibliography lists reports which have more information on particular programs. Some more detail is in the "Description of Major Programs" section.

The Low Income Housing Tax Credit is a program of the Internal Revenue Service, where landlords obtain tax benefits for renting to low income households.

In Public and Indian Housing, local and tribal governments get HUD money to build and operate housing. The housing is owned by the government.

In Section 8 Certificates+Vouchers, local and state governments get money to pay to private landlords to supplement the rent that low income households pay. The housing is owned by the private landlord. The household may move and take the subsidy with them, if they are able to search for and find a rental they like better (so these programs are often called "tenant based" or "finders keepers"). The difference between Certificates and Vouchers is primarily that Certificates have a maximum rent which the unit may not exceed. This maximum is published by HUD, the "Fair Market Rent," set by HUD at roughly the 40th percentile of the rents of adequate quality units in the area. Vouchers have no specific maximum, but the low income household has to pay any excess over the Fair Market Rent.(2)

In all the other programs the housing is owned by private landlords who apply for HUD subsidies. The subsidies pay the difference between tenant rents and total costs. These are called private subsidized projects (or "project based"). The main such program is Section 8 of the Housing Act of 1937 (this section was added in 1974). An older program is Section 236 of the National Housing Act (added in 1968), which has the distinction of requiring households to pay full operating costs and cover what the landlord's mortgage costs would be if the interest rate were one percent ("basic rent"). This requirement keeps out many low income households, who cannot afford the rent, so Section 8 subsidies have been added to two thirds of the Section 236 units (LMSA "Section 8 Loan Management Set Aside"). These LMSA units have the more usual rule that tenants pay 30% of their adjusted income. Data do not reliably distinguish LMSA households from others, so we only distinguish projects with LMSA, not the units.

This report does not cover other subsidies, such as Rehabilitation grants, Homesteading, Rural Housing Service (formerly Farmers Home Administration), etc., unless they also receive subsidies mentioned above, like Section 8.

Sources & Dates

Data on households were sent by agencies and landlords to HUD, and were summarized by HUD. Data on the number of units available and units occupied are from HUD's own administrative records. For Public, Indian, Certificates+Vouchers, Moderate Rehabilitation, all data are the most recent as of 5/98. For private projects, data on households are more recent, 7/98, but units in 7/98 are estimated from a 9/95 file. Tax credit households are from 1996; units & bedrooms are 12/94.

Number of Housing Units

The report and data file cover about four and a half million HUD-subsidized housing units, and a third of a million housing units assisted by Low Income Housing Tax Credits, for a total of nearly five million subsidized housing units. About a quarter are in Public Housing projects. Another quarter have Section 8 Certificates or Vouchers, which let participants choose their own rental units in the private market. About a fifth of the subsidized units are in the Section 8 New Construction and Substantial Rehabilitation programs. The other units are divided among various other programs, primarily Section 236 and the Low Income Housing Tax Credit. Some projects have a mix of subsidized and unsubsidized units; just the subsidized units are counted here.

Basic Counts

Subsidized Housing Units Available*

% of US Total

% Occupied

% Reported

Average Months since Report

% With Geography

% Represented by Weights

% Moved in the Past Year

Number of People

per Unit

Total (000s)

U.S. Total

4,838,978

100

96

84

8

84

92

13

2.3

10,684

Indian Housing

72,885

2

99

39

16

21

51

11

3.6

260

Public Housing

1,300,493

27

90

84

8

91

92

11

2.4

2,809

S.8 Certificates+Vouchers

1,391,526

29

99

87

8

72

97

15

2.7

3,720

S.8 Moderate Rehab.

107,609

2

99

68

9

66

95

25

2.2

234

S.8 New+Substantial Rehabilitation

894,330

18

98

88

7

96

92

12

1.6

1,402

S.236

447,466

9

96

79

9

98

92

15

2.1

902

Other Subsidy

292,584

6

96

74

9

90

82

15

2.4

674

Housing Tax Credit

332,085

7

99

76

2.2

700

* Double counting has been eliminated wherever possible, so each housing unit is counted only once, even if it receives more than one subsidy.

Percent Occupied

Occupancy rates are only collected for Public Housing. We assume plausible levels of occupancy in other programs for purposes of calculating the completeness of reporting (see "Meaning of Codes" section).

Percent Reported

Household data are reported for 84% of occupied units (so we have 16% missing data). The major programs (Public Housing, Certificates+Vouchers, Section 8 New+Substantial Rehabilitation) have the highest reporting, from 84-88%. Indian Housing has only 39% reporting. In Tax Credits no reporting is required. A few items are available from Opportunities to Improve Oversight of the Low-Income Housing Program (GAO 1997, see Bibliography). When the reporting rate is below 80%, data may be unrepresentative. Below 33%, we suppress the data as being meaningless. This cutoff is arbitrary; it lets us include some national data on Indian Housing. (We also suppress data on small neighborhoods and buildings, with less than 11 subsidized households reported, to protect confidentiality.) All households are still included in the national summaries.

Average Months since Report

HUD requires households to be reported annually, on a flow basis, so for good recent data the average time since data were reported would be about 7 months. Larger averages mean recent data have not been received, or large errors have been made so that some of the recent records have not yet been accepted into the system.

Percent with Geography

We lack good data on location for 16% of the units. These are not always the same units where we lack household data. This count is based on addresses good enough to calculate latitude. Other items may be more or less complete.

Percent Represented

The summaries are weighted to adjust for partial reporting in any project: households reported are assumed to be representative of other occupied units in the same project (or program and agency for Certificates+Vouchers and Moderate Rehabilitation). This assumption is not always correct, though it is more accurate than raw program counts. There is no weighting to represent the 8% of units in projects that did not report at all. If far too few households were reported in a project or program, the weight was not allowed to exceed 5, to avoid great discrepancies in weights, and resulting variance in the final data. On Certificate+Voucher tract summaries the weight was limited to 1.49 to avoid implying that two or more households moved to the same remote tract, when we only have one report from it.

Percent Moved in Past Year

Turnover is significant in all programs (caused by death, rising incomes & other changes) and highest in Moderate Rehabilitation.

Average People per Unit

There is variation from 1.6 people per household in Section 8 New, where many households are elderly, to 3.6 people in Indian Housing, where many are couples and middle aged working people.

Total People Subsidized

This number is the number of people per household, times the percent occupied, times the units available.

Organization of the Data

We provide data for the whole country, states, housing agencies, Census tracts (neighborhoods)(3) and housing projects (buildings). Note the smallest groups are neighborhoods and buildings: individual households are not shown, to protect their privacy. The following table shows the number of data records available. For example there are nine major summaries, for the eight programs and their total. Project records are present in some programs, and tract records in others.

Number of Records

Total

Major Program Records*

Special Summary Records*

State Records*

Housing Agency Records**

Project Records

Tract Records

All Records

192,310

9

58

460

6,580

49,173

136,030

Records that are Totals across Programs

61,332

1

13

55

61,263

Indian Housing

3,146

1

9

31

192

2,913

Public Housing

17,309

1

9

54

3,200

14,045

S.8 Certificates+Vouchers

77,434

1

9

55

2,602

74,767

S.8 Moderate Rehab.

649

1

9

53

586

S.8 New+Substant.Rehab.

15,238

1

3

55

15,179

S.236

4,279

1

2

52

4,224

Other Subsidy

3,424

1

4

52

3,367

Housing Tax Credit

9,499

1

53

9,445

* Records are printed in this report

** This report prints agency records for agencies with 500 or more units. All other records are available on Internet.

Rent, Income, and Age

Rent per Month

Spending per Month

Household Income

Majority of Income is from:

Income Mix: % of Average Income

% if Local Median

Age of Head or Spouse, whichever is older

per Household $000s

per person $000s

% $1-4,999

% $20,000 or More

Wages

Welfare

% 24 or Less

% 62 or More

% 85 or More

U.S. Total

209

412

9.5

4.1

17

6

27

15

67

25

10

32

5

Indian Housing

249

252

17.0

4.7

12

29

53

12

79

5

15

1

Public Housing

193

349

9.1

3.8

20

6

25

15

75

25

10

32

4

S.8 Certificates+ Vouchers

217

471

9.6

3.6

17

6

32

20

62

24

8

17

2

S.8 Moderate Rehab.

167

547

7.8

3.5

27

3

27

25

67

20

17

17

1

S.8 New + Substant.Rehab.

196

493

9.1

5.7

11

3

14

7

51

26

7

60

10

S.236

261

253

11.0

5.2

14

8

37

12

62

28

14

34

5

Other: BMIR, RAPSUP, LMSA, PROP. DISP

204

341

10.0

4.2

24

11

40

18

82

26

17

22

2

Housing Tax Credit

13.3

6.2

10

17

37

Rent per Month

Average rents paid by households range narrowly in most programs from $193 to $217. These rents include estimates by each housing agency of tenant-paid utilities. Rents are lower in Moderate Rehabilitation, because of those households' low incomes. Rents are higher in Section 236, because of the high "basic rent" that many households have to pay (see "Program Overview"), and in Indian Housing, because of the households' higher incomes. Rents in Indian Housing do not fully mirror their relatively higher incomes, since most Indian Housing is Mutual Ownership, with a distinct calculation for household cost (shown on form 50058 at the end of this report).

Spending per Month

These figures on current spending do not reflect what it would cost to expand any particular program. For example Public Housing costs appear low, since HUD paid off the construction costs several years ago. New Public Housing would cost much more than the average current spending, since construction costs would have to be paid. Also low spending can reflect high incomes of occupants, as in Indian Housing, not necessarily management efficiency.

For Section 8, total spending is calculated for each household (from the rent calculation form 50058 or 50059) and averaged, so averages do vary in each tract and agency. In Certificates+Vouchers and Moderate Rehabilitation our estimate also includes the 8% administrative fee. We are not able to estimate or include the spending on vacant units.

For Public & Indian Housing, we only include 1996 operating and modernization spending, since the construction costs have already been paid (the long term bonds were paid off a few years ago), and opportunity cost is not available. Drug Elimination Grants and other smaller grant programs are not covered.

Operating subsidy to all agencies, and modernization funding to large agencies (generally over 250 units), is distributed every year by formula so we use the actual funding obligations.

For smaller agencies modernization funding is competitive, and they do not receive it every year, so the actual funding for any agency in one year would not reflect average long term spending. As an approximation we found the average modernization funding per unit, and multiplied this average by the units in each agency to estimate the long term expected value of modernization spending. A higher fraction of Indian agencies receive modernization than of other agencies, so we calculated the average separately for Indian and non-Indian agencies.

Then in each agency, for this summary, total spending in Public and Indian Housing was averaged per occupied unit per month, without differentiating among projects. In fact some receive more or less than average each year.

Income

Income per household is highest in Indian Housing. Income per person is highest in Section 8 New, because of the small household sizes of its elderly households, and Tax Credits, because of moderately high incomes with moderately small households. This is total income, without subtracting the adjustments that are used in calculating rent. However some types of income are not counted at all by HUD and are not included here, such as scholarships and earnings of minors.

The welfare category in this report is intended to cover TANF (formerly AFDC(4) ) and General Assistance, but not Supplemental Security Income (SSI). A portion of welfare income may not be identified in the 1998 file, because of changes in the welfare programs. The main welfare program has changed its name from AFDC to TANF, and the main data collection form during this period did not identify TANF. Some TANF income may have been placed under "Other nonwage," or other categories which are not counted as welfare here, or the source of income may have been left blank. In particular it is curious that while the percent elderly did not change from 1996 to 1998, the percent receiving pensions and Social Security rose, as did the percent in Other nonwage. Thus the apparent drop in welfare since the 1996 report may reflect data problems, as well as better coverage of many projects, instead of true change. It will always be hard to measure a national program with 20-30 local names, as both TANF and General Assistance have.

Income Mix

Income mix is expressed as a percent of the average income. The larger the percent, the more income mix there is.(5) The national income mix is widest in Public and Indian Housing and in the "Other Subsidy" projects. These programs serve a wide range of incomes across the country. The mix is narrowest in Section 8 New, where most households are elderly, living on Social Security or Supplemental Security Income (SSI); these incomes vary little between or within projects. Some Section 8, 236 and "Other Subsidy" projects have unsubsidized households, who are not counted in this report, and extend the income mix. The surroundings of Certificates+Vouchers likewise include unsubsidized higher income households. Figures here include different household sizes, without adjustment, so some mix is due to larger households typically having (and needing) more income than smaller households.

These figures reflect the spread of incomes in each program, across the country, including high and low income areas. The mix is usually narrower in any one project or neighborhood. To understand why most local figures are smaller than the national figure, consider an example of two equal-sized projects: one where everyone has $20,000 income, and another where everyone has $5,000. The mix is zero in each project, but the combined mix is quite wide (60%). National figures are not averages of local figures, but measure the overall national mix. The following table does give average mix, from projects and tracts with enough reporting (i.e. the ones with data shown in the data file). Public and Indian Housing still have a wider mix of incomes in their projects than most, but not by much. They serve a wide range of incomes across the country, but not so wide in each project.

Number of Units, by Income Mix in Project (in Tract for Certificates + Vouchers)

Total

Up to 19%

20-39%

40-59%

60-79%

80% or more

Median Mix

Average Mix

Total

3,514,000

10,000

736,000

1,536,000

964,000

269,000

53

54

Indian Housing

27,000

18

2,000

13,000

11,000

2,000

59

59

Public Housing

1,115,000

1,000

162,000

426,000

328,000

198,000

58

59

Certificates+Vouchers

958,000

1,000

76,000

572,000

288,000

21,000

54

55

New + Substant. Rehab.

795,000

7,000

375,000

260,000

133,000

20,000

41

45

Section 236

389,000

387

91,000

177,000

107,000

13,000

52

52

Other Subsidy

230,000

1,000

29,000

88,000

97,000

15,000

59

58

Income as Percent of Local Median.

In this file we compare the income of each subsidized household, to the adjusted local median income. (The median income of families in each metropolitan area and each non-metropolitan county is estimated regularly by HUD, because it is used in setting income limits for housing subsidies.) For example if the adjusted local median income is $30,000, then a subsidized household with $10,000 income has 33% of adjusted local median income.(6)

The figures here are average ratios for each project, census tract, agency, state, etc. One could also have sorted the households in each project, etc., and found the median ratio, which would have been somewhat smaller.

Age of Head.

Section 8 New has by far the highest concentration of elderly, 60%. Public Housing and Section 236 are next at 32–34%, and the other programs are 15–22%. It may be noted that 5% of subsidized households (about 230,000) have a head or spouse age 85 or older, which gerontologists term the "very old."

Disabilities, Minorities, Bedrooms

Head or Spouse has Disability

% Minority

% Black

% Hispanic

% Native American

% Asian or Pacific Islander

Average Difference between Agency & Project (in % Minority)

Number of Bedrooms

As % of under Age 61 and Younger

As % of Age 62 and Older

0-1

3 or More

U.S. Total

23

35

58

39

15

1

3

44

24

Indian Housing

9

29

91

1

0

89

0

8

80

Public Housing

24

30

69

47

19

0

2

13

50

26

S.8 Certificates+ Vouchers

23

41

58

40

15

1

2

15

25

34

S.8 Moderate Rehab.

24

37

67

43

21

1

2

46

16

S.8 New+ Substant.Rehab.

37

38

24

11

0

3

71

9

S.236

14

53

36

13

1

5

43

19

Other: BMIR, RAPSUP, LMSA, PROP. DISP

14

71

54

12

1

4

31

26

Housing Tax Credit

47

33

11

44

14

Disabilities.

Many people in the programs have disabilities. Overall a fifth of the non-elderly have disabilities. Also, a third of the elderly have disabilities, but this is not necessarily surprising; many of us develop disabilities as we age. The definition includes mental and physical disabilities; for a summary of the definition, see the last page of form 50058 at the back of this report.

Minorities.

Overall, 58% of households are minorities (39% Black, 15% Hispanic, 1% Native American, 3% Asian). Indian Housing of course is almost entirely minority (for a recent description of Indian Housing see Kingsley et al. 1996). The lowest minority rate, 38%, is in Section 8 New projects.

The Average Difference column measures separation between minority and white subsidized households. The larger the number, the more separately subsidized whites & minorities live from each other. The scale is from 0 to 50. It is a broad indicator, and more detailed analysis with individual racial and ethnic groups can be done (Goering et al. 1995).

For each Public Housing project, "Average Difference" is the difference between: (a) % minority for the project, and (b) overall % minority for Public Housing at the agency. We average the figures from each project to have a total for each agency, state or other area.(7) Averages for states and the United States exclude agencies with under 5% or over 95% minority, or only one project, since differences are not meaningful in such agencies.

In Public Housing, households are assigned to projects by the housing agency.(8) Thus racial differences would not be expected in projects, except by chance, or by households of one race moving out of or refusing to move into particular projects . The 13% national figure is a mix of random variation in some agencies, current practices, and past segregation patterns.(9) It may be useful in reviewing a particular agency to notice whether its figure is above or below this national average, but no particular figure proves discrimination. Particular practices at individual agencies need to be studied before any conclusions can be drawn.

For Certificates+Vouchers, which do not have projects, "Average Difference" is based on the location of subsidized households in Census tracts: For each Census tract we take the difference between: (a) % minority among Certificate+Voucher holders in the tract, and (b) overall % minority among Certificate+Voucher holders at the agency. For averages we exclude tracts with 10 or fewer households reported, since tracts with so few subsidized households have little chance of matching the agency average. Averages for states and the United States also exclude agencies with under 5% or over 95% minority, or only one tract, since differences are not meaningful in such agencies.

This average difference is not the difference between subsidized households and the whole tract, but that can easily be calculated, since the tract's % minority is shown near the end of the record (and summarized in the next table). The difference shown above is the difference between subsidized households in the tract and subsidized households in the agency.

The average difference happens to be 13 points in Public Housing and 15 in Certificates+Vouchers. The similar averages do not mean the programs operate in the same manner. As the next table shows, Certificate+Voucher holders live in neighborhoods with many fewer minorities than Public Housing tenants: 41% minority on average, compared to 59%. The measure on the table above is different: Minority and white Certificate+Voucher holders live in different neighborhoods from each other to some degree. This difference reflects that households often lived in racially disparate neighborhoods before they applied to the programs. Some stayed in place. Others moved, but not far (Léger and Kennedy 1990). Thus the minority and white subsidized households do not end up equally distributed in the same neighborhoods as each other. We do know from the next table that Certificate+Voucher holders end up in more integrated neighborhoods than Public Housing tenants. But there is still a difference in the locations of white and minority Certificate+Voucher holders.

The average difference is limited by the percent minority in the agency: for example some large agencies are nearly all minority and can only have small differences among projects. An agency that is 5% or 95% minority can have an average difference as high as 9, while an agency that is 20% or 80% minority can have an average difference as high as 32. A 50% minority agency can have an average difference as high as 50.

One could use numerous other statistics to summarize racial differences among projects or Census tracts.

Social Conditions

% Both Spouses and Children

% No Spouse, with Children

% Female Head

% Over-housed: More Bedrooms than People

% With Utility Allowance

Their Average Utility Allowance

Average Months Since Moved in

Average Months on Waiting List

Surrounding Census Tracts

% in Poverty

% Minority

% Single Family Owners

U.S. Total

6

41

79

8

67

67

72

21

26

45

34

Indian Housing

33

37

58

25

75

138

41

Public Housing

6

39

76

7

43

50

80

11

36

59

26

S.8 Certificates+ Vouchers

8

56

84

9

90

83

28

20

41

40

S.8 Moderate Rehab.

6

46

74

5

78

69

15

29

53

30

S.8 New+ Substant.Rehab.

3

20

77

3

68

50

70

21

34

36

S.236

7

37

75

9

51

53

65

21

40

33

Other: BMIR, RAPSUP, LMSA, PROP. DISP

7

47

77

10

58

52

66

28

55

32

Housing Tax Credit

64

21

37

40

Marriage and Children.

Couples with children are not common, except in Indian Housing, since they tend to have more income than elderly and single parents. The first two columns above can be added to count all households with children. These figures are based on age, so they include foster children, nephews, grandchildren; anyone under 18. Female heads are common, since they include most households with no spouse present, as well as most elderly.

Overhousing.

The extent of over-housing may limit access for large households. It results partly from households that are not relocated to smaller units when their children grow up and leave.

Fuel and Utilities.

Utility allowances are given when individual metering and billing are used, so they show the extent of individual metering. The size of the allowance is estimated by each Housing Agency to reflect typical bills. Households may actually spend more or less.

Length of Stay.

For some programs we have length of time since the household moved in. It averages 6 years (72 months), with little variation. The average total stay of households, until they move out or die, is twice this span, or 12 years.(10)

Waiting List.

Time on waiting lists varies more than length of stay, from 11 months in Public Housing, to 28 months in Certificates+Vouchers and 41 months in Indian Housing. This is the average waiting time for people moving in. These tend to be in the higher priority categories ("preferences"), which give them the shortest waits. The average wait for people remaining on the waiting list is longer.

Neighborhoods.

To describe the neighborhoods of these households, we show three types of information for the Census tracts surrounding them. The figures on the Census tract include the subsidized households there, so large projects can dominate or overwhelm the neighborhood figures. Tax Credit projects return to the discussion here, since we do have most of their addresses, and can describe their neighborhoods, even though they do not have to report on their occupants.

A Census tract is an area averaging 1,500 homes, chosen by local communities in cooperation with the Census Bureau, as an area that is somewhat homogeneous socio-economically. In low density areas Census tracts cover large land areas, so they are broader than the common idea of a neighborhood.

The programs divide into two groups, based on their neighborhoods' poverty and minority composition. The Public Housing, Moderate Rehabilitation, and Other subsidy projects are in neighborhoods with high average poverty, 28-36%, and high minority rates, 53-59%.

On the other hand, Certificate+Voucher holders find neighborhoods which are like the ones found by landlords of Section 8 New, Section 236 and Tax Credit projects: average poverty rates of 20-21% and average minority rates of 34-41%. Even these neighborhoods have much higher poverty and minority rates than most of the country (13% poor and 24% minority). Remembering that over half of Certificate+Voucher holders are single parents with children, they would need substantial child care and transportation during their search process, in order to search widely outside the neighborhoods they know.

To provide a different view of these neighborhoods, we show the percent of households in the neighborhood that own single family detached homes. This measure splits the programs into the same two groups as poverty and minority rates do, though not as strongly. Public Housing, Moderate Rehabilitation, and Other subsidy projects are in neighborhoods with low single family homeownership rates of 26-32%. The other programs are in neighborhoods with slightly higher homeownership rates, 33-40%. The national average is 53% (owners of single family detached homes as percent of all households), though the national average for neighborhoods of low rent units is lower.. Analysis of Local Data

Analysis of Local Data

The preceding pages commented almost entirely on the numbers which can be found directly in the national summary records. Since the report and data file include state summaries as well as the national ones, the reader can readily find similar data for each state.

The data file also has local records for individual housing agencies, projects and neighborhoods. In the following tables we count some of those records, and show some of the patterns that can be found.

If the reader wants summaries for individual counties, cities, or metropolitan areas, the local records can also be summarized to provide those. The reader would need to add together either (1) all project records and also agency summaries for Certificates+Vouchers and Moderate Rehabilitation, or (2) the tract records that are summaries across all programs. The first method will generally have less missing data, because it often puts agencies in the right county, even when their tenants could not be individually geo-coded. In agencies with county code 888 (serving multiple counties) the specific tract records for Certificates+Vouchers can be used instead. There will be some missing data in any case, as discussed in the "Basic Counts" section. Areas vary in the completeness of their data, but most areas have fairly complete data in this file. For larger cities, the level of missing data in Public Housing and Certificates+Vouchers can be found readily in the lists of large agencies in the body of this report.

Number of Subsidized Units, by Percent Poor in Tract

Total

0-9% Poor

10-19%

20-29%

30-39%

40% or more

Total

3,899,000

735,000

1,091,000

753,000

543,000

777,000

Indian Housing

3,000

396

1,000

1,000

1,000

179

Public Housing

997,000

67,000

160,000

177,000

174,000

419,000

S.8 Certificates+Vouchers

1,175,000

263,000

410,000

254,000

145,000

104,000

S.8 New+Substant.Rehab.

793,000

211,000

244,000

144,000

93,000

101,000

S.236

424,000

95,000

136,000

83,000

54,000

55,000

Other Subsidy

254,000

36,000

60,000

48,000

44,000

65,000

Housing Tax Credit

252,000

63,000

78,000

46,000

32,000

34,000

Number of Subsidized Units, by Percent Minority in Tract

Total

0-19% Minority

20-39%

40-59%

60-79%

80% or more

Total

3,899,000

1,419,000

622,000

441,000

377,000

1,040,000

Indian Housing

3,000

2,000

1,000

416

213

143

Public Housing

997,000

222,000

116,000

108,000

110,000

442,000

S.8 Certificates+Vouchers

1,175,000

469,000

207,000

143,000

119,000

237,000

S.8 New+Substant.Rehab.

793,000

390,000

136,000

75,000

56,000

137,000

S.236

424,000

163,000

82,000

53,000

40,000

85,000

Other Subsidy

254,000

61,000

38,000

34,000

31,000

90,000

Housing Tax Credit

252,000

113,000

42,000

26,000

22,000

49,000

Distribution of Neighborhoods.

These two tables count the subsidized households by some characteristics of their tracts. Note that the total units are lower than in other tables, since we lack some addresses and cannot put them into tracts.

The first table confirms that much Public Housing is in tracts with high poverty rates, as mentioned on the previous page. Other programs tend to be in less poor tracts.

Similarly Public Housing tends to be in minority tracts. 'Other Subsidies' are in minority tracts almost as much, but the remaining programs tend to be in tracts with fewer minorities. Fairly few units are in the tracts that are nearly 50-50 white and minority. Indeed the country has fairly few such tracts in general.

Number of Subsidized Units, by Concentration in Tract

Total Subsidized Units

Subsidized Units Have:

Their Tracts Have:*

Average Income

% Elderly

% Minority

% Minority

% Poor

Total Subsidized are:

3,900,000

9,580

33%

58%

45%

25%

Up to 9% of Tract

1,592,000

9,561

32

45

28

16

10-19% of Tract

1,001,000

9,477

37

52

40

22

20-29% of Tract

437,000

9,390

35

65

54

29

30-39% of Tract

234,000

9,338

31

72

63

35

40-49% of Tract

158,000

9,607

31

77

69

39

50% or more

479,000

10,128

30

87

84

51

Median % of Tract

13%

*Weighted average, weighted by the number of subsidized units present

Spatial Concentration.

The data file has a summary record for each Census tract. There are about 61,000 Census tracts in the country, with a 1990 population of 250 million. Subsidized housing is in about 50,000 Census tracts, with a 1990 population of 210 million. Many of these tracts have no subsidized projects, and only a few Certificates+Vouchers, which households can take to any unit with a moderate rent. Even Certificates+Vouchers are fairly concentrated, because of households' preferences, and a lack of transportation and child care to permit a wide search in a reasonable time. The data file allows one to compare all tracts, with and without various kinds of subsidies.

We have tallied subsidized units by some of the characteristics of their tracts. Note that, as on the previous page, the total units are lower than in other tables, and some statistics differ, since we lack some addresses and cannot place them in tracts. Furthermore this table, like all tables in the report, is based on the public summary file, so it does not have data where few households were reported, and data were suppressed. The rate of concentration ranges widely as a percent of the homes in the tract, but the median subsidized unit is in a tract that is 13% subsidized.

Incomes and ages of subsidized households do not vary consistently based on the level of subsidy concentration in the tract. However the highest incomes are in the most concentrated tracts. These tend to be in large cities, where incomes of subsidized households tend to be higher than average. The oldest households are in tracts where 10–29% of households are subsidized (perhaps reflecting the presence of small elderly projects).

Minority and poverty rates vary more. Minorities tend to be in tracts with high concentrations of subsidized housing: there are high minority rates both in the subsidized housing and in the tract as a whole when subsidy concentration is high. Also the tracts with a lot of subsidized housing tend to have high poverty rates (as expected, since subsidized units are included in the poverty count for the tract, and raise the poverty rate).

The following table shows similar data, with the point of view changed, from the perspective of subsidized units, to the perspective of the total population of these Census tracts. Eighty-five percent of people in the United States live in Census tracts where there is some subsidized housing.

U.S. Population, by Concentration of Subsidized Units

Total People

Their Tracts Have:*

% Minority

% Poor

Total Subsidized are:

247,098,000

24

13

None in Tract

36,205,000

13

9

Up to 9% of Tract

184,252,000

23

13

10-19% of Tract

18,252,000

42

22

20-29% of Tract

4,431,000

56

29

30-39% of Tract

1,631,000

65

35

40-49% of Tract

875,000

71

39

50% or more

1,451,000

84

50

Median % of Tract

1%

*Weighted average, weighted by the total population present, subsidized or not

Number of Agencies and Projects, by Size of Agency

Number of Agencies

Number of Projects

# Tracts

Total

Indian Housing

Public Housing

Certificates + Vouchers

Indian Housing

Public Housing

Certificates + Vouchers

Total

4,418

192

3,200

2,602

2,913

14,045

74,767

1-99 Total Units in HA

1,639

43

1,191

525

147

1,793

2,290

100-299 Units in HA

1,265

74

862

754

643

2,375

7,289

300-499 Units in HA

523

33

372

409

509

1,510

6,101

500-999 Units in HA

473

28

359

416

730

1,819

10,137

1,000-2,999 Units in HA

266

10

211

250

420

1,697

10,764

3,000-4,999 Units in HA

170

3

136

168

245

1,872

15,264

5,000-9,999 Units in HA

48

1

41

47

219

1,084

8,897

10,000-29,999 Units in HA

30

0

24

30

0

1,093

10,385

30,000 or More Units in HA

4

0

4

3

0

802

3,640

Size of Agency.

The body of the report shows the number of subsidized housing units and their characteristics by size of agency. The table above counts the number of agencies and projects. There are relatively few large agencies, but they have most of the units.

We count agencies based on total units in all programs. If we had counted the number of units in any one program, there would have been slightly fewer large agencies and more small ones. When an agency has more than one numeric code, we do count each code separately. The 1996 report tried to group them, in order to count each agency only once. The multiple codes happen primarily in state-wide agencies, which have a different code for each HUD office they work with.

Number of Subsidized Units and Projects, by Size of Project

Total

Project Size

1-49 Subsidized Units

50-99 Subsidized Units

100-199 Subsidized Units

200-499 Subsidized Units

500-999 Subsidized Units

1,000 or More Subsidized Units

Total Units

3,350,000

617,000

763,000

1,002,000

657,000

159,000

152,000

Number of Projects

48,836

27,232

11,184

7,651

2,458

241

70

Indian Housing

73,000

48,000

19,000

6,000

1,000

0

0

Number of Projects

2,709

2,352

306

48

3

0

0

Public Housing

1,310,000

165,000

234,000

311,000

322,000

131,000

146,000

Number of Projects

13,913

6,565

3,531

2,414

1,140

196

67

S.8 New+Substant.Rehab.

894,000

198,000

271,000

320,000

100,000

3,000

3,000

Number of Projects

15,179

8,339

3,937

2,493

404

4

2

S.236

447,000

29,000

97,000

189,000

121,000

9,000

3,000

Number of Projects

4,224

965

1,370

1,389

484

15

1

Other Subsidy

293,000

33,000

78,000

104,000

67,000

10,000

0

Number of Projects

3,367

1,189

1,120

787

255

16

0

Housing Tax Credit

332,000

145,000

63,000

72,000

46,000

6,000

0

Number of Projects

9,445

7,823

920

520

172

10

0

Size of Projects.

Most projects are small, under 50 units. But most units are in larger projects, those with 100 or more units. The smallest projects are common in all programs, while the very largest projects are primarily in Public Housing. This table omits the 336 Public and Indian projects in the data file with zero units, since they are usually not really separate projects (see "Units" in the "Meaning of Codes" section).

Privately owned projects in some programs can have multiple subsidies. This table shows how we have categorized the subsidy records at HUD, matching on FHA and Section 8 project numbers to avoid double-counting. The number of subsidized units here is slightly less than in other tables, since active projects with zero units in the files are counted as zero here, but their size is estimated for other tables.

Most LMSA/RAPSUP units are in Section 236 and BMIR projects, which are subsidized anyway. The remainder are added to the subsidized count. A few can even be in Section 8 New projects, where Section 8 only subsidizes part of the project, and LMSA can be provided to help the other units if the project runs into difficulty.

There is still a limited amount of double-counting in the figures, since Vouchers may be used in Section 236 projects, and Section 8 may be used in Tax Credit projects, and we do not yet subtract out the overlap.

A Picture of Subsidized Households in the 1970s. codebook & data file order # HUD-8112, by Paul Burke. HUD, July 1997. This has summary socio-economic data on subsidized households in Public & Indian Housing for each project in 1976-77. It also has budget data for individual line items of housing agencies' income & expenses in 1971-76. It was prepared around 1979, but not issued until 1997.

Family Data on Public & Indian Projects, 1993, order # AVI-27, by Paul Burke. HUD, November 1993. This is an earlier version of A Picture of Subsidized Households, 1996, prepared on a comparable basis, also with data on individual projects & agencies. It excludes Section 8, FHA & Tax Credits.

A Picture of Subsidized Households, 1996. 11 volumes & data file, order # HUD-7611 to HUD-7621, by Paul Burke. HUD, December 1996. This has summary socio-economic data on subsidized households for the US, each State, each housing agency, project & Census tract (all tracts are in the data file, but only tracts with many subsidized units are in the books). It includes Public, Indian, Section 8, FHA & Tax Credit projects. It also includes geographic data such as latitude, longitude and zip code. Volume 11, the national summary, uses latitudes and longitudes to provide colored thematic maps for selected areas.

A Picture of Subsidized Households in 1997. 1 summary volume & a more detailed data file, order # HUD-8562, by Paul Burke. This has summary socio-economic data on subsidized households for the US, each State, each housing agency, project & Census tract. It includes Public, Indian, Section 8, FHA & Tax Credit projects. It also includes geographic data such as latitude, longitude and zip code. The printed volume has totals for the nation, States and housing agencies with 500 or more units.

A Picture of Subsidized Households in 1998. 1 summary volume & a more detailed data file, by Paul Burke. This has summary socio-economic data on subsidized households for the US, each State, each housing agency, project & Census tract. It includes Public, Indian, Section 8, FHA & Tax Credit projects. It also includes geographic data such as latitude, longitude and zip code. The printed volume has totals for the nation, States and housing agencies with 500 or more units.

Subsidized Housing Projects' Geographic Codes, form HUD-951, order # AVI-1004, HUD, 1996. HUD project numbers with names and as many addresses per project as we could find; coded in early 1996 with: latitude, longitude, 9-digit Zip codes, Census block, tract, Congressional District, place, Minor Civil Division (town in New England) or Census Civil Division, County, MSA. More geographic detail than A Picture of Subsidized Households, 1996, 1997, 1998, but no data on occupants, and addresses not as complete as in Picture 1997, 1998.

"Report on Subsidized Tenants," Appendix C in HUD Annual Report 1988. HUD, 1990. An earlier & very brief version of Characteristics of HUD-Assisted Renters and Their Units, based on the 1987 American Housing Survey.

"Report on Subsidized Tenants," Appendix C in HUD Annual Report 1989. HUD, 1991. Data for selected samples in various areas, from the same data base as this report, & from research samples.

"Characteristics of HUD-Assisted Tenants," Appendix C in HUD Annual Report 1990. HUD, 1992. A very brief summary of Characteristics of HUD-Assisted Renters and Their Units, based on the 1989 American Housing Survey.

Characteristics of HUD-Assisted Renters and Their Units in 1989, order # HUD-5961, by Connie Casey. HUD, March 1992. This has data (from sample interviews in the American Housing Survey) on the housing & neighborhood quality of the units people live in. Only about 33% complete for Public Housing and 50% complete for private subsidized projects, because of inability to match addresses. Similar books forthcoming for 1991 and 1993.

The Assessment of the HUD-Insured Multifamily Housing Stock, Final Report, v. 1, Current Status, order # HUD-6261, by James E. Wallace, Abt Associates, September 1993.

Location and Racial Composition of Public Housing in the United States, order # HUD-6557, by John Goering, Ali Kamely & Todd Richardson. HUD, March 1995.

Assisted Housing Quality Control, order # HUD-7219, by Suzanne Loux, Mary Sistek & Frank Wann. HUD, 1996. Measures errors in the form 50058 & 50059 data used in this report (though not using income matching to detect unreported sources of income). The largest dollar errors come from not getting income verifications on earnings & pensions, and, more surprisingly, not using verified amounts even when they are obtained. Net errors in rent average $4 underpayment per month per household.